I'll be blunt. I can understand the reasons for not including MP, based on time, budget, or a combination of the two. What is really, and I mean really rubbing me the wrong way is how the information regarding the complete removal of MP was just kind of dribbled out two days before beta. I would not have purchased Elemental without MP, and while that game was a bust I've been patiently waiting for a year as Stardock has stated they would like to make things right. It's not an issue of money for me, it's the fact that I feel that I've been strung along for years now.
If Fallen Enchantress was an attempt to "make things right" with the customer base, it has certainly had the opposite effect for me. I fully acknowledge that, as a TBS gamer who gets the most enjoyment from coop with friends, I'm in the minority. I get that. But I feel I've been lied to and strung along and it's left me more than a little pissed off.
I honestly and sincerely wish the people working on FE the utmost success, but I think I'm done with Stardock. I'm not going to do anything silly like a boycott, it's not that, it's just that I don't feel like I can trust a damn thing they say, so why bother following their game development?
Anyway, this isn't some righteous crusade or anything, I just wanted to make my voice heard. Don't worry, I'll let myself out and make sure the door doesn't collide with my backside. For the majority of people who were only interested in single player, I hope FE turns out to be everything you hoped!
You're asking for numbers, you've given numbers and then you say that they're not enough. You could've just said "I don't really care about the numbers I just said it to make my point" and saved the time of typing the long reply.
You're defending MP with arguments that cannot be countered, like
You give absolutely nothing to back this stuff up than your own intuition.
You said that an MP-centric game with rave reviews has no trouble selling. Ever thought it could be because it got *rave reviews*?
You live in your own little bubble and refuse to have it any other way. You said it yourself:
".. bear in mind that myself and my circle of friends are die-hard multiplayers .. 77% means very little to me when it fails so spectacularly to reconcile with the world I see all around me every single day."
I'll just stop here. I have full respect for people who are disappointed with no MP, but you're so far in the wrong here I feel like yelling to you.
Valid points. Better late than never, if I may summarise it.
So there is a kernel hope, yes. If FE is exceptional and a future expansion brings MP then I may well buy it, despite these meta-issues. I know some people like to post about boycotting Stardock and never buying another game from them but I'm not about to cut off my nose to spite my face. I own Sins, Demi and all side-ons. I like Stardoc which is what compounds my frustrations. Overall I'm primarily interested in playing quality games with my circle and something to dethrone SM in terms of MP TBS. But I would do it all with a bitter taste in my mouth.
Also relevant - it appears that the future of any expansion and thus any MP component seeing the light of day seems to be linked to the commercial success of FE. Given the reception of WoM that seems like a large hill to climb without appealing to wider sub-demographics. Like the multiplayers for instance.
Edited by request. I'll stay in my bubble.
lolz, a good thing you did not lose your sense of humor
Frogboy's "from a friend" is not Joe Schmucko down the block. It's the people that work at Firaxis. You know, the people that would know better than anyone else in the world just how successful Civ's MP has been.
These concepts must be considered abstractly, too. It's fine to say, historically only a quarter of people played Demigod but then Demigod was a title of very varied reception. Many people don't go beyond a review score. Why to assume that the multiplayer crowd were actually drawn enough to your title? Multiplayers are loyal beasts and rarely jump ship for anything less than the best. An MP-centric title with rave reviews has no trouble selling. You present the Demi-god figure as evidence of the fractional demand of multiplayer but given that it's a multiplayer centric game could it not be presented equally as evidence for falling at it's central objective?
Make up your mind. Does empirical evidence matter or not? Frogboy just gave you the two most relevant samples for the importance of multiplayer in EFE. EWOM and Civ4. One was the most hyped Fantasy TBS in years the other probably the most successful TBS in a decade (and maybe ever). In both cases multiplayer participation was too weak to have justified the financial commitment from the studios. They justified it out of love for the genre and for multiplayer in general. Surely Civ4 had an active MP community no? It attracted the "loyal beasts" certainly, didn't it? And yet still it was only 4% of the player base.
Also, most multiplayers will learn a game in singeplayer before they bring their game to the lobby. Is there anything to disprove that 60% of users didn't buy Demigod with the intent of playing multiplayer, but didn't like it enough to continue beyond the 'campaign'? Only 23% of people entering the lobby does not actually prove conclusively that only 23% of people were interested in multiplayer. Would you not agree? Furtermore, who is likely to be playing Demigod today? The 77% who have rinsed single player or the multiplayer community? How do you attribute the value of demand? If 8/10 people play a game alone for 6 months and then shelf it but the remaining 2/10 play it for several years should the value be assessed on a 1 for 1 basis? Many older games still exist in the public mind on the weight of their multiplayer community alone. Different genre I know, but where would SC1 be now with no MP component? The lesson is valid.
There's also nothing to disprove the fact that 60% of Demigod players intended to play multiplayer exclusively but didn't for fear that it would trigger the aliens living on the moon to kidnap them and subject them to uncomfortable anal experiments. You can't declare an unprovable assertion and then proceed to base your argument on it.
I'd argue that 23% entering the lobby would be an inflated number, especially if you're trying to argue that it represents those who will become consistent and long term MPs. What portion of the 23% entered the lobby just to see what Demigod MP was like with no intention of ever seriously playing MP. This was the category I fell into. How many entered the lobby accidentally? 23% is the upper limit of your number, not the lower limit.
Why on earth should a company value a long term multiplayer more than a singleplayer gamer? They likely earn no extra revenue from that multiplayer but likely incur some greater cost (or at best have no cost or revenue). Besides, TBS is not SC1. If the sandbox mode is done well, singleplayer focused gamers will spend just as much time (measured in hours or longevity, however you like) with the game as multiplayer gamers will.
Demigod is also three years old. Do you not see a gaming world that hinges exponentially around multiplayer? Tell me if I'm insane because that's what I see. Also, even for the sake of argument we allow for the fact that only one quarter (still a fairly large 'fraction') are historically interested in MP in a 4x TBS that statement completely ignores a dynamic and changing world. Who's to say the people buying 4x TBS games tomorrow entertain exactly the same breakdown? In fact, all reason suggests the trend only has one way to go, does it not?
See Frogboy's Civ4 stat. It's not 25%. It's more like 4%. Your arguments also ignore the demographic difference of the various genres. How many TBS (or Fantasy TBS) gamers are likely to also be avid multiplayer gamers? A rise in MP (mainly in MMOs, FPSs, and some hybrid adventure games) does not obviously translate into TBS games where the demographic population is generally a little older and generally has less predictable blocks of free time.
You're experiencing recency bias. In your world you've seen a series of successful MP games, reinforced by the fact that you seek out successful MP games. You'll naturally associate the success of those games to MP and place inordinate weight on the MP component even when the weight you place on it does not agree with the empirical evidence.
Just for the record, EFE never committed to MP. As long as three months ago Brad said that he wanted MP to be included but that it would be cut if including it was going to detract from the work on the single player experience.
I get that you feel shafted for the MP experience of EWOM, but that doesn't entitle you to a MP experience in EFE. I felt just as shafted by the single player experience of EWOM. The vast majority of players for EWOM played it for sandbox single player. SD is trying to make good on those bad feelings first while acknowledging that they may address MP in the future. From a customer satisfaction perspective it makes sense for an organization that does not have unlimited resources.
I'm pretty sure that's what they did spend on multiplayer, even if it doesn't exist. Hence why Frogboy personally wants to add multiplayer eventually , because he has already invested money in it.
I am a huge multiplayer fan but I don't really care about this announcement. I actually do play multiplayer Civ5, and that is still almost unplayable because of glitches, feature cuts, and lack of mod support. That the game reaches a certain level of quality is much more important then multiplayer support, in the end multiplayer in a game like this is the iciing on the cake. Hopefully it gets in eventually, but I won't hold my breath.
That said, you fail to address the statistics given for Civilization IV and Sins (well, aside from the "a friend told me" comment which doesn't contribute to the debate :/), 2 multiplayer-oriented games that have very good multiplayer, sold well, and were well received by the critics.
What you're asking for is a bad multiplayer mode, because the resources and time it would have required are beyond Stardock's current abilities. What interest do you have in a terrible MP game? What would be the benefit for Stardock to release such a game? What would the players get from it? In order to make FE good, they had to sacrifice MP. Instead of a game that sucks for everyone, we'll have a decent-to-awesome (remains to be seen) game for SP enthusiasts, and a game MP enthusiasts don't care about.
His argument that the Demigod and WoM samples are biased is sound though, so his dismissal of them is acceptable. This is why Frogboy gave other examples.
The assertion that "Also, most multiplayers will learn a game in singeplayer before they bring their game to the lobby. Is there anything to disprove that 60% of users didn't buy Demigod with the intent of playing multiplayer, but didn't like it enough to continue beyond the 'campaign'?" as support for his argument is unprovable.
Besides, just because WOM sample may be biased does not mean it is not relevant. It just means that you have to understand the bias when considering the numbers. That's why Frogboy gave other unbiased numbers to show that the WOM numbers were consistent with what you would expect to see. When you combine WOM's sample with the Civ4 sample, which is certainly not biased in the way WOM is, you begin to see a larger picture about TBS multiplayer.
My larger point, which I realize I did not make clearly, was that there is a reason companies use data analysis and empirical evidence. It's because the world "as we see it" is often not actually the world as it is. Each one of us color our observations with any number of things based on our personal preferences. Empirical evidence allows us to have the discussion without dealing with our own personal bias. You can't dismiss the numbers simply because you don't like what they say. You can further analyze them and see if there is other data to pull out, but numbers don't lie.
This whole argument stems from a very unique situation in the world of software and game development. When was the last time you saw a developer go to such lengths to rectify a situation with its customers? EA would never do something like this, they would admit defeat and move onto a different genre.
The multiplayer issue here stems from a cost perspective. Yes, there are those of us who want to see mutliplayer for FE. But given WoM numbers on sales, and Stardock as a whole as a game dev and publisher, the investment of time and money on something like multiplayer, especially given that it requires months of rewrite for tactical battles, which is the reason you would play it with your buddy in the first place, is a huge financial risk, if there investment fails to bring in the capital.
They have a sound strategy, release a polished single player experience, and if the interest is there, an expansion with multiplayer will likely be in the future. Look at the game Dungeons, was single player, then after good sales, a stand alone expansion was released with multiplayer.
I have faith in Stardock, they have gone above and beyond my expectations as a consumer. Lets all have faith, companies like this need support to stick around and show the larger ones what customer service truly is.
Quoting srw46, reply 22Can we also agree that without the methods of collecting being cited, the numbers are of very limited value? I could say that 98% of players want MP based on my own data collection but without detailing how I collected it that figure is worthless (and absurd). I'm not accusing you of that, of course, I'm sure your indicators are fairly sensible but they can't really be evaluated otherwise.
Granted, clocking users as they come into the lobby is a seemingly viable way to measure such a thing but I have little faith in polling and the like. Although even then, bear in mind that myself and my circle of friends are die-hard multiplayers and the reason that some or all of us never entered the lobby with WoM is because we already know that the multiplayer just wasn't there. Thus the figure is skewed and unreliable. As impressive as your 1% sounds I think it says a lot more about the state of multiplayer in WoM than it does about demand.
Quoting srw46, reply 22
Also, most multiplayers will learn a game in singeplayer before they bring their game to the lobby. Is there anything to disprove that 60% of users didn't buy Demigod with the intent of playing multiplayer, but didn't like it enough to continue beyond the 'campaign'? Only 23% of people entering the lobby does not actually prove conclusively that only 23% of people were interested in multiplayer. Would you not agree?
Furtermore, who is likely to be playing Demigod today? The 77% who have rinsed single player or the multiplayer community? How do you attribute the value of demand? If 8/10 people play a game alone for 6 months and then shelf it but the remaining 2/10 play it for several years should the value be assessed on a 1 for 1 basis? Many older games still exist in the public mind on the weight of their multiplayer community alone. Different genre I know, but where would SC1 be now with no MP component? The lesson is valid.
Quoting srw46, reply 22Soundbites are all well and good but in reality they barely scratch the surface. That 77% means very little to me when it fails so spectacularly to reconcile with the world I see all around me every single day.
At the end of the day, to be clinical about it, you're here to shift boxes and I appreciate that. There are also practical limitations to just how exhaustively such an issue can be explored and I understand that too. But shifting boxes is well and good but the games that are years, even decades old but still have strong communities and lasting legacies and whose originating studios enjoy prolific status usually share two characteristics: A moddable aspect and a multiplayer aspect.
To say one final thing. None of these figures seek to address the fact that the box said multiplayer and what was in it, didn't have multiplayer (in any functional state). A decision for no MP may disappoint. Broken promises enflame.
You're experiencing recency bias. In your world you've seen a series of successful MP games, reinforced by the fact that you seek out successful MP games. You'll naturally associate the success of those games to MP and make inordinate weight on the MP component even when the weight you place on it does not agree with the empirical evidence.
Well argued.
Okay, 'from a friend' was hyperbole but I do it only to illustrate that figures without transparency are not really valid. In the Civ 4 case not only is the method of collection not stated it's also second hand. It was ripe for spin, sorry. Regardless, the fact it's Frogboy may be enough for some but the method of collection is surely relevant in assessing the value of the figures? e.g. A mandatory government census is a more valuable statistic than a poll on Facebook.
Empirical evidence does matter, of course but I'm forced to repeat myself when I say that how that evidence came about is absolutely relevant. Are we talking about flagging accounts when the enter the lobby or are we talking about polling the community on the forum. It is absolutely relevant.
"There's also nothing to disprove the fact that 60% of Demigod players intended to play multiplayer exclusively but didn't for fear that it would trigger the aliens living on the moon to kidnap them and subject them to uncomfortable anal experiments."
Nothing except common reason, perhaps. I'm not hinging any argument on this assertion I'm again merely highlighting the limitations in this collection of data. I see people treating these figures as one-dimensional when they're not.
It's my number now? Not i'm not suggesting that 23% went on to become consistent MP players. What we're seeking to quantify is people who are 'interested in a MP aspect'. People who went into the lobby to see what it was like have an interest, no? Granted the minimal amount of interest possible. I still maintain that it is quite probable that people buying the game with some interest in multiplayer never got as far as the lobby. I don't say that because Demigod SUCKED SO BAD (I actually enjoyed it a lot) but merely because I believe it.
In terms of revenue there is certainly no direct value to be placed on a longer term but I'm pretty sure I addressed that in my post. However, there is certainly value for a studio in creating long running communities that interact on multiple levels. And I would challenege your assertion that a single player would play a game as long as their multiplaying counterpart. And a person who plays both would play it even longer still.
Is it that you disagree that games with solid multiplayer components go on to life lives and foster active communities far longer than games without?
And yes I'm aware that multiplayer games are predominantly other genres. But the point is the MARKET is becoming more multiplayer and anybody entering that market needs to consider it. These games share the shame shelf space. Most people only have X amount of money to spend on games.
"I get that you feel shafted for the MP experience of EWOM, but that doesn't entitle you to a MP experience in EFE."
Doesn't it? I paid for something, it wasn't delivered. I don't really see the distinction between our shaftings.
'You're experiencing recency bias.'
Yes, probably.
It seems the core rebuttal being thrown my way today is demanding I admit that these are only my opinions. I have no problem with that, these are my opinions. I have no evidence to back them up.
As I said original, I only came here mostly to express my dissappointment and that of my contemporaries. Yes, it was spiced with vitriol that's because I was sold a product and it was not fit for purpose, that much is inarguable in my opinion (I never claimed FE committed to multiplayer, WoM certainly did).
I never came here to debate, I did a lot of that in the early development of the game and it achieved diddly squat.
It was Frogboy's response that enticed me to say more. A chance at his ear was tempting. For the most part I have done nothing but share my opinions, which again, are just opinions and attacked the value of the statistics provided because without knowing how they were collected we can never truly asses their value. I stand by that.
For the remaining part, I have only suggested that forgoing multiplayer because the cold hard dollars don't add up is a shame and that not catering to it because 'historically' the demand is 'fractional' is possibly in err. Why is it a good thing that the genre should not adapt to a changing market? You say yourself that we're predominantly the older players in this genre, is it not then a good idea to bring younger and newer players into this genre? What is bad about that? Do we want this genre to stagnate or innovate?
I am a single player just as much as I am a multiplayer. All I am pushing for, ultimately, is to share the single player with my friends and relatives, which to me adds an even more enjoyable dimension to the experience. What is SOOO bad about that I don't understand.
I am verbose and arrogant, which no doubt attracts most my fire but I think the core of my stance is positive if not at the very least benign. I think the people say "**** MP if it means I gotta wait two months" are more deserving of scath, personally.
I'm content with the decision to prioritize single-player with the available resources. Although I do play multiplayer games (Portal 2, Magicka, SOaSE), I've never found TBS strategy games to be a format that's friendly to the MP experience.
@srw46 Frogboy is very specific when he explains the MP in E:wom
That's your method right there.
Indeed. And I've explained above why I personally think that figure is not worth an awful lot.
And here it is in fact Heaven.
"Granted, clocking users as they come into the lobby is a seemingly viable way to measure such a thing but I have little faith in polling and the like. Although even then, bear in mind that myself and my circle of friends are die-hard multiplayers and the reason that some or all of us never entered the lobby with WoM is because we already know that the multiplayer just wasn't there. Thus the figure is skewed and unreliable. As impressive as your 1% sounds I think it says a lot more about the state of multiplayer in WoM than it does about demand"
To add - I knew how buggy and broken the MP was before I'd even left the office as the forums plastered with such reports. I personally entered the lobby, to see for myself but as a gaming circle the decision was made that trying to setup a game would just be an exercise in frustration. So that's at least four people who we definitely interested in multiplayer but never made 'the count'. Extrapolate, and just how reliable is that 1%?
More reliable than anything you or anyone else has put forth, by a thousand miles. Frogboy's numbers may not be perfect, but they're good enough to base decisions on until a better number comes along.
But in saying that you inherently agree that the number IS in fact unreliable.
No, that's your misinterpretation. Reliable is not the same as perfect. I believe Frogboy's number is reliable, but not perfect. And either way, Frogboy and his company has to make a decision. His best bet is always to base his decisions on the most reliable information.
Semantics. It is 'imperfect' then. Which was kind of my whole drive.
And still, it is the most reliable information available. What information would you rather he base decisions on?
I'd rather he base his decision purely on what I want.
Usually if you have to make a decision and the only information you have is unreliable, the answer is to solicit better information.
But it is not unreliable. It is reliable, but not perfect. I'm sure Frogboy understands the self-fulfilling prophecy issues of measuring multiplayer in E:wom.
Finally, I am part of the 1%.
Personally I would have loved multiplayer but I can understand the decision that with limited resources the SP game has to be optimized first.
This kind of game is still rarely played in multiplayer due to the large amount of time that has to be invested which means that usually only prearranged matches between friends happen (I have played Civ4 quite often in MP in the last year but every single game took multiple evenings).
Nonetheless the explanation is odd. Tactical battles in a turn based games tend to have very little user input per time as usually only one player at a time is allowed to do something. As the rest of the game was developed for MP, the synchronization engine already exists. So instead of User input -> Abstract action with parameters -> game state change you get User input -> Abstract action with parameters -> Message -> game state change. Serialization of an abstract action is not very difficult, unless, that is, if the user input is not converted into an abstract action and no real boundary between UI and state changes exists.
How could he even start to get better information? He is already getting information from exactly 100% of his customers (all who got EWoM). From a marketing point of view this is incredible good information.
Statistically only about 20% to 30% (*) of your customers will even answers to a question like "Are you using feature XYZ of my product." Some of those answers will be a lie. The rest wont even answer ... at all.
(*) Depending on lentgth of the survey, rewards for completing etc.
Yes, but War of Magic is a relatively bad product, so people aren't exactly eager to play it with their friends...
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
